I know we're all busy here in Massachusetts making sure Deval trounces Kerry. However, in one of the other New England states they've got themselves another interesting, highly contested race. Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the primary, but the
scumbucket incumbent Senator used a loopwhole to run as an independent anyway. Then there's a spirited Republican, Alan Schleshenger, thrown into the mix. It's kind of like our race, where no one takes the third-party candidate (in Connecticut's case, the Republican) as a serious candidate - more of a fun, makes some good points kinda guy.
However, unlike in Massachusetts, they have a
DINO Connecticut for Lieberman party member (Joe Lieberman) who's been found to be corrupt, Bush backing and dangerously incompetent. In all honesty, I can't think of one reason to vote for him. Heck, I could even think of reasons why I should vote for Kerry Healey!
The fact is:
this guy cannot win the election. Sadly, he's got a decent (though not insurmountable) lead. Ned Lamont has a great ground game, huge base and can overcome a deficit of a few percentage points, but he needs help. Like I said, I know we're all busy in Massachusetts, but if any of you know ANYONE in Connecticut give them a phone call, send them an email, write on their Myspace Wall or send them an AIM. Joe Lieberman is not fit to serve.
Posts
17 comments:
I'd vote for Lamont in a heartbeat over Lieberman, but was it really a loophole that he used to get on the ballot as an independant? He collected signatures and got enough to get on the ballot, what's wrong with that?
I consider it a loopwhole when you can run as a democrat, then lose, and at the last minute put yourself on the ballot anyway.
It's a matter of opinion, but that's exactly mine. I'd feel the same way if a Republican did the same thing.
Nothing's wrong with it if he had dropped out of the primary. You shouldn't agree to run in a primary and then refuse to abide by the results, most states wouldn't even allow it, they have sore loser laws that prevent these types of shenanigans that subvert the already expressed will of the voters. Either run in the primary and be bound by the decision, or skip the primary and run in the general, otherwise what's the point of having a primary, which costs the states lots of money to print ballots and pay volunteers and so on. It becomes a pointless exercise, and it really doesn't encourage participation in the democratic process when the people who bother to show up find out their votes have no impact and aren't even legally binding. Why bother?
It would be different if Lieberman had a problem with primaries in general, and had been going around the country railing against the primary system and how we need to abolish it and just have 34 candidates in every category in the general. But he hasn't. He's been more than happy to participate in primaries in the past, he wouldn't be in the Senate today if he hadn't won the primary 18 years ago, so technically if he's so against primaries now he should drop out of the race altogether and come back next time as an Independent just on principle, but the minute he loses it's a completely different story? That's a little self serving and hypocritical. And if it was his challenger being a spoiled brat and refusing to accept the will of the electorate after he lost the primary, he'd be singing a different tune. "I'll abide by the result if I like them" isn't really a great principle.
If he loses to Lamont he's going to say the exact same thing he said in the primary "I cannot allow these reults to stand." This seat is mine through G-d, not through you voters who have no right to vote against me. They'll have to use more force to eject him from the Senate than they did to spring Elian Gonzales.
Your first paragraph sums up all my feelings on the issue. He's a sore loser and I'm glad what he did isn't allowed in Massachusetts.
Quite simply, anyone running as an independent should have to file all their papers at the same time as anyone running for the primary.
Because your from MA you might not know all the great things that Joe Lieberman has done for CT. Kept Jobs, created new jobs, cleaned up Long Island sound and much, much more. Joe will win this election and thank god. Lamont is just a millionair with one issue (iraq)who is trying to buy the election. So call your friends in CT and tell them to vote for Lieberman the more experianced, intelligent,worthy and deserving choice. If not then stay out of our election you got enough problems up there
Rings hollow when Joe Lieberman has by far outspent Ned Lamont.
Joe Lieberman is a disgrace to the United States Senate. I'll borrow a line from Kerry Healey: He should be ashamed, not Senator.
According to the FEC, unless I am reading this wrong, Lieberman has only outspent him by about 1.5 mil. as of a few weeks ago, which is not that much in a race where the total amount spent is around 30 million.
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/
The numbers I saw had it by a few more million than that. Either way, Joe Lieberman has spent more - both during the primary and the general. The "he's just a rich millionaire" rings hollow regardless.
Please, please, please don't stick up for Joe Lieberman. That's a quick way to lose ALL your respectability as far as I'm concerned. There isn't a single, coherent reason to vote for the guy - not one. The chances of him retaining his seniority aren't great and even if he does, he's not even a DINO anymore: his agenda would be horrible for the committee he'd chair. You can't even trust that lying, decietful SOB to caucus with the Democrats - he could easily switch his caucus and thus swing the Senate to the Republicans (when it's looking good that we could win the Senate - just need to win 2 out of Missouri, Virginia, TN and Arizona).
All that "experience" has been 16 years of cover for the Republicans, of stay-the-course Iraq policy, of allowing Alito to get on the bench. I'd rather an amatuer.
There isn't one good reason to vote for Joe Lieberman that isn't easily refuted. And that's before you get into the fact that he's a friggin scumbag. There isn't one iota of decency in that man's body.
Sure adam, we'll stay out of your election. Oh wait, we're allowed to have an opinion if we agree with you, it's only if we disagree we should stay out? Great to see how many Republican supporters Joe has. It's not like he's part of a national legislative body. It's not like the fact the he always votes with his beloved Bush on every important natioanl issue affects us. Lucky us, we get to opt out of Joe's war, only ones fighting that are he and his daughters, right? Hey, I'm not in Iraq so why should I get a damn about anyone who is and doesn't want to be?
Joe voted against the filibuster and helped put two crazy extremists on the Supreme Court? Lucky us, we're not under US jurisdiction so that doesn't affect us. The Bankrupcy Bill? Hey, we don't live in the US.
Great, Joe brings home pork. So does every other Senator. Put a cardboard cutout in Joe's place and he'll bring home pork too, you won't even notice the difference. Except the cutout might believe in respecting the voters and abiding by the results of an election he committed to and might not tell rape victims to drive around in circles trying to find a doctor who'll actually treat them.
Lieberman has only outspent him by about 1.5 mil. as of a few weeks ago
The point is, Lieberman has outspent him. If Lamont is a millionaire trying to buy an election, what does that make the millionaire who's spent more than he has?
I don't support Lieberman at all, if I were registered in CT. I'd vote Lamont no questions asked. Our troops are too important to keep fucking around with. I just thought it was fair to point out that Lamont is not exactly strapped for cash in this race.
Oh, okay. That's fair. He's certainly not. Kudos for him to be willing to spend it. I'm sure he's spent a lot of his money - if this weren't a lot for him, I'm sure he'd really be outspending Lieberman.
"with one issue (iraq)"
You might just want to leave it at one issue and not spell out the Iraq part. That way, people might assume that Lamont's "one issue" is something really trivial like changing from round trash cans to square ones or going metric.
Because Iraq is, in the opinion of some people, the most important issue of our lifetime. And they might just base their vote on that over say, most other issues right now.
Nobody said Lamont's strapped for cash, just the opposite. Lieberman's supporter implied that poor guy hasn't got a cent and his millionaire opponent is spending him into the ground.
Ya, I can't stand how people say, "oh, but it's only one issue!"
Well, the way I see it are there are 2,800+ issues coming into America in caskets. There are anywhere from 150,000-650,000+ issues rotting in Iraq. There are 100s of billions of issues - stopping us from having health care, a balanced budget and burdening MY future because of GWB's excess.
Iraq is not one issue. It effects our entire national policy. It hurts our so-called war on terror, by literally breeding hundreds of thousands of new potential terrorists. It effects our allies' willingness to be allies.
It effects EVERY DOMESTIC POLICY because it costs so much friggin money.
Like I said, Iraq is not one issue. It's THE issue.
I know! My dad is in the military, he got out and he doesn't think he'll have to go back in hopefully, but he's in favor of a draft (I'm not) because he thinks it's the only way to really wake people up.
He gets these magazines and there are so many just catastrophic injuries that will make it so difficult to ever live a normal life again, and those are the lucky ones.
He says that if there was a draft, this would be over tomorrow because people would riot in the streets before they'd go over there or let their kids or their parents or anybody they care about go over there. But as long as it only affects a smaller percentage of the population, it's a lot easier just to brush it aside like it's nothing.
And you're right, it affects everything. We have no money to do anything because it's all going down the sinkhole. If Lieberman and Bush have their way, they won't rest until they invade Syria, and Iran, and I don't really feel safe with meglomaniacal lunatics who don't have a damn clue what they're doing in charge.
It's an interesting concept - and one that a Democrat from New York tried to do in Congress a few years back. I'm not sure if I'd support it, but there has to be *some* kind of way to make these things noticably effect everyone. Too many of the nation's poor are hoodwinked into the military.
I'm sort of a fan of drafting civil service - and allowing people choose what role they'd fill. It could be working with the poor, it could be tutoring, it could be Park Services... or it could be the marines. It would still create the idea that everyone's involved and no one could forget about the world's problems (even beyond Iraq - imagine people from Westwood, Lynnfield and Newton having to tutor kids in Detroit)... yet it wouldn't force anyone to serve in the army if they're opposed to it. I'm opposed to violence, at least unless the very survival of America were at stake... but I suppose whether or not I'd ever join the army is a moot point since I'm not even allowed to join it to begin with.
It's a sad commentary on the state of the whole system when people are willing to spend millions to get a job that pays ?
hundred thousand. It breeds corruption. You have to have power to corrupt it. That's why now the Republicans are under investigation for corruption and the last time the Dems were in power they were the ones being investigated.
I agree, I think it's just morally wrong to try and force anyone to kill or commit acts of vilence against their will. I'd extend it further, too, and give more opportunities to people who signed up to get out. Bush is using our army as cannon fodder, and the guys in my friend's class who are in the Guard and don't know why they're there or what they're doing, shouldn't have to stay.
The joined up to defend us and instead the Emperor thinks they serve at his pleasure and he doesn't even have a reason to send them wherever he wants? Uh, no. "Volunteer army" should mean if you believe in this mission, you go, if you're owndering why the hell you're there shooting at people and being shot at for no early reason, we let you out.
Anon, I'm not saying that Democrats are saints, but most of the things they were investigated for boiled down to "Republicans are mad because of Iran-Contra, now for payback we're going to drum up a scandal over whether Clinton's podiatrists's friend said he looked at a dog funny in 1954 and pretend it's as serious as Watergate." I'm not a Clinton fan, and he can be criticized on a million counts, but the seriousness of his "investigations" doesn't really compare overall imo.
Post a Comment